Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Putin’s Anti-West Rhetoric Was for Domestic Consumption

Sergei Guriev is a professor of economics and the head of the New Economic School in Moscow.

Updated March 18, 2013, 5:26 PM

The electoral campaign of Vladimir Putin brought back fears of confrontation between Russia and the West. In his campaign rhetoric, the United States and NATO were the only parties Putin mentioned as potential threats for Russia. Moreover, in his meetings with supporters, he made a number of comments suggesting that he distrusted the U.S. and believed it was supporting the opposition.

In comparison to staying in power, good relations with the West are certainly a second-order issue.

This rhetoric -- and his pro-Assad actions -- puzzled U.S. observers. They wondered: Why make such hostile statements given that Putin, who has always been pragmatic and non-ideological in his foreign policy, will have to do business with the U.S. once elected?

The answer to this question is simple: the stakes in Russia’s internal politics during the campaign were very high. The unprecedented level of electoral fraud suggests that Putin’s team was not confident in his ability to win an honest election. And using a reference to an external enemy came up as an easy tool to mobilize support. To make Russians rally around the flag, Putin used war-like language, calling the elections “a battle for Russia.” He repeatedly argued that opposition and civil activists for honest elections were working against Russia’s national interest. In the major rally on Feb. 23, he compared his electoral campaign to Russia’s wars against Napoleon and Hitler.

In comparison with staying in power, the good relations with the West are certainly a second-order issue. Moreover, as it is almost common for Russian politicians to forget electoral promises once elected, the Russian government believes that the campaign rhetoric does not matter. It is very likely that Russian policy makers will get back to Western partners and say “let’s forget all the confrontational statements that were made for domestic consumption and get back to business.” There is certainly a lot of business to discuss. Russia needs foreign investments, Western technology and access to Western markets. There is an obvious scope for cooperation in security and nuclear nonproliferation. Even though Putin expressed disapproval with the U.S.’s efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program, Russia is certainly interested in preventing further instability in the Middle East.

Of course, there is a problem with this approach. In U.S. presidential campaigns, words matter. U.S. presidential candidates will have to discuss Putin’s policy statements and actions. Republicans will not miss a chance to refer to Putin’s campaign as an indication of the failure of Obama’s reset policy. And this could hurt Putin: Will he try to rectify relations with the U.S. through cooperation on Syria and Iran?